The Foreign Service Journal, January 2008

Department of Defense cannot shift the blame for failed reconstruction efforts to the State Department. Many of those who might otherwise volunteer for service in Iraq believe that there is little they can add bar- ricaded in secure areas or streak- ing through the streets surrounded by security forces who strike terror in the local population. Ultimately, enough people did volunteer to fully staff the Iraq mission. Looking to the future, how- ever, it may be worthwhile for Con- gress and the administration to em- power an impartial and broad-based panel to examine the correlation between security and working-level effectiveness, and to determine under what security conditions mission activities should be drawn down, setting out updated tripwires for consideration. Though the new standard should not be compulsory, it could provide a benchmark for comparison that would extend to all missions around the world. Leo Gallagher FSO Washington, D.C. We Are At War I have been reading about the protests against being assigned to Baghdad. To be honest, I am offend- ed. Our country is at war. I don’t like the war. We should not have gone into Iraq to begin with. Our human rights record and our failure to oppose waterboarding and other torture techniques help the terrorists and weaken America. Still, if the best and brightest refuse to serve (in other words, ask for a deferment), less skilled officers will manage things. That’s ethically unac- ceptable, and just as wrong as draft- dodging was during the Vietnam War, when our embassy stayed open up to the last day. Because I have decades of experi- ence in crisis management, I volun- teered to go to Iraq. In fact, I had to fight to get permission to serve there because I wear a defibrillator, but was finally medically cleared. In the end, my office director would not let me go. Later, I decided to retire from the Foreign Service, in part to protest our policies and work for political change from the outside by joining a cam- paign. We can oppose the war. But we also took an oath when we joined the department not to be fair-weather government employees, serving only when it is safe. I am still opposed to the war, which I find morally repug- nant. But even though I am retired, I would go to Baghdad today to serve my country if asked. I would hope others would do the same, putting the good of the country over safer job placement. Larry Roeder FSO, retired South Riding, Va. A Colonial Service? Rather than treating the recent directed assignment brouhaha as a difficult exercise in personnel man- agement — or, as some would have it, a very public enforcement of Foreign Service discipline — we need to consider frankly, as a government and a nation, how the U.S. diplomatic corps is increasingly being assigned the role of a colonial service in Iraq and elsewhere. While I generally disagree with columnist Robert Novak, he was spot on when he recently characterized diplomats as skilled negotiators and reporters, not nationbuilders (Nov. 15 Washington Post ). Novak was faulting the Foreign Service for perceived shortcomings, but I would contend that diplomacy and nationbuilding (or rebuilding, as the case may be) represent two entirely distinct mis- sions, and that colonial administration has never belonged in the Depart- ment of State. However you judge the history of the British and French empires, London and Paris recognized that their diplomatic and colonial services performed separate functions and required diverse skill sets that only somewhat overlapped. My former colleagues in the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization can provide a detailed, exhaustive listing of the many capabilities needed to rebuild and then administer a country shattered by war. Very little of the required expertise can or should reside in our — or any nation’s — diplomatic corps. If we, as a country, intend to pursue further imperial adventures of the sort we have undertaken in Iraq, then Congress and the American people need to enter into an open, honest debate about the creation of a new colonial service. And that debate needs to address not only the administrative and logistical details, but also the fundamental political question of what the continued pursuit of such policies will ultimately mean for the future of our republic. Keith A. Eddins FSO Arlington, Va. Caring Isn’t the Issue One of the testiest exchanges during the town hall meeting oc- curred when the DG vehemently denied the assertion that Secretary Rice did not “care about” the Foreign Service. That was correct, however, and for Amb. Thomas to deny it ignores reality. In my almost 30 years with the department, including stints on the 7th floor and in HR working for several political ambassadors and assistant secretaries, I never met one who “cared” about the Foreign 24 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 L E T T E R S